Beheshteh Malekafzali1, Mohammad Asnaashari2, Fateme Javadi3. 1. Department of Pediatric dentistry, Dental School, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. 2. Laser Application in Medical Sciences Research Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. 3. Department of Pediatric, Dental School, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Adhesive restorations have become highly popular in pediatric dentistry, and novel methods of cavity preparation with minimal patient discomfort including Er:YAG and Er,Cr:YSGG laser preparations have greatly advanced. This study aimed to compare the microleakage of composite restorations of class V cavities prepared in primary canine teeth with high-speed bur and Er:YAG and Er,Cr:YSGG lasers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This in vitro study was conducted on 30 class V cavities prepared on the buccal surfaces of primary canine teeth in three groups (n = 10) of bur preparation, Er:YAG laser and Er,Cr:YSGG laser. The cavities were etched, bonded and restored with Grandio flowable composite according to the manufacturer's instructions. After thermocycling, the teeth were immersed in 1% methylene blue dye for 24 hours to detect microleakage. The teeth were evaluated under a stereomicroscope at ×32 magnification to assess the depth of penetration of methylene blue. The data were analyzed using SPSS version 19 and non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis and Mann Whitney tests. RESULTS: Non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test showed no significant difference in dye penetration among the three groups (P > 0.05). Pairwise comparisons of occlusal and gingival margins by nonparametric Mann Whitney test revealed no significant difference in microleakage either (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Use of Er:YAG and Er,Cr:YSGG lasers can decrease microleakage to the level of bur preparation. Bur and laser cavity preparations are not significantly different in terms of microleakage at the enamel or dentin margins. Thus, considering the advantages of laser, it may serve as a suitable alternative to bur preparation in pediatric dentistry.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Adhesive restorations have become highly popular in pediatric dentistry, and novel methods of cavity preparation with minimal patient discomfort including Er:YAG and Er,Cr:YSGG laser preparations have greatly advanced. This study aimed to compare the microleakage of composite restorations of class V cavities prepared in primary canine teeth with high-speed bur and Er:YAG and Er,Cr:YSGG lasers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This in vitro study was conducted on 30 class V cavities prepared on the buccal surfaces of primary canine teeth in three groups (n = 10) of bur preparation, Er:YAG laser and Er,Cr:YSGG laser. The cavities were etched, bonded and restored with Grandio flowable composite according to the manufacturer's instructions. After thermocycling, the teeth were immersed in 1% methylene blue dye for 24 hours to detect microleakage. The teeth were evaluated under a stereomicroscope at ×32 magnification to assess the depth of penetration of methylene blue. The data were analyzed using SPSS version 19 and non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis and Mann Whitney tests. RESULTS: Non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test showed no significant difference in dye penetration among the three groups (P > 0.05). Pairwise comparisons of occlusal and gingival margins by nonparametric Mann Whitney test revealed no significant difference in microleakage either (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Use of Er:YAG and Er,Cr:YSGG lasers can decrease microleakage to the level of bur preparation. Bur and laser cavity preparations are not significantly different in terms of microleakage at the enamel or dentin margins. Thus, considering the advantages of laser, it may serve as a suitable alternative to bur preparation in pediatric dentistry.